Associative symmetry in a spatial sample-response paradigm

Vasconcelos, Marco; Urcuioli, Peter J.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2011.01.002

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Symmetry has also been successfully demonstrated in pigeons using successive (Go/No-Go) matching procedures, in which identity matching was trained together with arbitrary relations (e.g., Frank, 2007;Frank & Wasserman, 2005;Urcuioli, 2008;Vasconcelos & Urcuioli, 2011). The present study also extends the findings of Picanço and Barros (2015), with symmetry-compatible performance in a capuchin monkey in a successive (Go/No-Go) procedure.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Recently, some studies that used a successive (Go/No-Go) matching procedure (e.g., Frank, 2007, Frank & Wasserman, 2005Urcuioli, 2008;Vasconcelos & Urcuioli, 2011) reported the property of symmetry in pigeons, supporting the argument that procedural issues may be responsible for several of the prior failures to document symmetry in nonhumans. Following Sidman's proposition (Sidman, 1994(Sidman, , 2000, Urcuioli argued that such difficulties in demonstrating equivalence class formation in nonhuman subjects may be attributable to inappropriate control by stimulus and reflexivity (e.g., Sweeney & Urcuioli, 2010;Urcuioli & Swisher, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…9 (Special Issue) PP. 30 -39 locations during training and testing and thus may reflect more of a procedural issue than dependency on any direct multiple exemplar (or language) training (Urcuioli, 2008;Vasconcelos & Urcuioli, 2011). In addition to issues concerning adventitious control by stimulus locations, another procedural issue that may be partially responsible for negative results with nonhuman subjects is the presentation of probe trials without programmed reinforcement (Brino, Galvão, & Barros, 2009;Galvão, Calcagno, & Sidman, 1992;Schusterman & Kastak, 1993).…”

Section: Assessing Symmetry In Capuchin Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If any learning-set effect occurred, then acquisition should have been faster as successive training conditions were implemented. As mentioned above, some studies reported positive results of symmetry assessment by controlling the stimulus location during training and restricting the stimuli to only one possible location during testing using a successive Go/No-Go procedure (e.g., Frank, 2007;Frank & Wasserman, 2005;Urcuioli, 2008;Vasconcelos & Urcuioli, 2011). The present study implemented such stimulus-location control using multiple sample and comparison locations in a 3 x 3 matrix (as used by Brino et al, 2009;Barros et al, 2002;Barros, Galvão, & McIlvane, 2002;Galvão et al, 2005).…”

Section: Assessing Symmetry In Capuchin Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing Symmetry by Comparing the Acquisition of Symmetric and Nonsymmetric Conditional Relations in a Capuchin Monkey

Filho

Silva

Velasco³

et al. 2016

Int. j. psychol. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article history: Received: 15-04-2016 Revised: 29-06-2016 Accepted: 12-08-2016 Key words: conditional discrimination; equivalence class formation; symmetry; Sapajus sppThe present study presents a procedure to assess the property of symmetry by comparing the acquisition of conditional relations that are consistent and inconsistent with this property in a capuchin monkey (Sapajus spp.). One young male monkey underwent arbitrary matching-to-sample training. The experiment had four phases: Phase 1.1 (establishing A1B1 and A2B2 relations), Phase 1.2 (reinforcing B1A1 and B2A2 relations, consistent with the property of symmetry), Phase 2.1 (establishing A3B3 and A4B4 relations), and Phase 2.2 (reinforcing B3A4 and B4A3 relations, inconsistent with the property of symmetry). A comparison between Phase 1.2 (consistent) and Phase 2.2 (inconsistent) showed faster acquisition of consistent relations (B1A1 and B2A2) than inconsistent relations (B3A4 and B4A3). The results suggest that the established conditional discriminations may have the property of symmetry and confirm the potential of comparative analysis between the acquisition of conditional discriminations as a promising procedure to evaluate equivalence class formation in nonhuman subjects.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Assessing Symmetry In Capuchin Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessing Symmetry In Capuchin Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing Symmetry by Comparing the Acquisition of Symmetric and Nonsymmetric Conditional Relations in a Capuchin Monkey

Filho

Silva

Velasco³

et al. 2016

Int. j. psychol. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonhuman subjects, however, have yielded mostly negative results (e.g., Hogan & Zentall, 1977;Lionello-DeNolf & Urcuioli, 2002;Lipkens, Kop, & Matthijs, 1988;Tomonaga, Matsuzawa, Fujita, & Yamamoto, 1991;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995). Reflexivity (Sweeney & Urcuioli, 2010), symmetry (Frank & Wasserman, 2005;Garcia & Benjumea 2006;Urcuioli, 2008;Vasconcelos & Urcuioli, 2011;Velasco, Huziwara, Machado, & Tomanari, 2010;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995), and transitivity (D'Amato, Salmon, Loukas, & Tomie, 1985;Kuno, Kitadate, & Iwamoto, 1994) have been reported in separate experiments with nonhuman animals. However, only one study with a California sea lion has obtained positive results with combined tests (Schusterman & Kastak, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we investigated emergent conditional relations in pigeons using a symbolic matching-tosample task with temporal stimuli as the samples and hues as the comparisons. Both experiments comprised three phases. In Phase I, pigeons learned to choose a red keylight (R) but not a green keylight (G) after a 1-s signal. They also learned to choose G but not R after a 4-s signal. In Phase II, correct responding consisted of choosing a blue keylight (B) after a 4-s signal and a yellow keylight (Y) after a 16-s signal. Comparisons G and B were both related to the same 4-s sample, whereas comparisons R and Y had no common sample. In Phase III, R and G were presented as samples, and B and Y were presented as the comparisons. The choice of B was correct following G, and the choice of Y was correct following R. If a relation between comparisons that shared a common sample were to emerge, then responding to B given G would be more likely than responding to Y given R. The results were generally consistent with this prediction, suggesting, for the first time in pigeons, the emergence of novel relations that involve temporal stimuli as nodal samples.

show abstract

Evidence for Response Membership in Stimulus Classes by Pigeons

Urcuioli

Jones

Lionello-Denolf

2013

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response membership in pigeons’ stimulus class formation was evaluated using associative symmetry and class expansion tests. In Experiment 1, pigeons learned hue-hue (AA) and form-form (BB) successive matching plus a modified hue-form (AB) task in which reinforcement was contingent upon a left versus right side-key response after the positive AB sequences. On subsequent BA (symmetry) probe trials, pigeons responded more often to the comparisons on the reverse of the positive than negative AB sequences and, more importantly, preferentially pecked the side key consistent with symmetry after the reversed positive sequences. In Experiment 2, the original three baseline tasks were supplemented by dot-white (CC) successive matching in which reinforcement was contingent upon a left versus right side-key response after the positive CC sequences. Class expansion was then tested by presenting non-reinforced CA and CB successive matching probes. Comparison response rates were mostly non-differential on CA probes but were uniformly higher on CB probes that consisted of the C samples and B comparisons from the same, hypothesized class. Together, these results provide evidence that responses can become members of stimulus classes, as predicted by Urcuioli’s (2008) theory of pigeons’ stimulus-class formation and Sidman’s (2000) theory of equivalence.

show abstract

Associative symmetry in a spatial sample-response paradigm

Cited by 4 publications

References 39 publications

Assessing Symmetry by Comparing the Acquisition of Symmetric and Nonsymmetric Conditional Relations in a Capuchin Monkey

Assessing Symmetry by Comparing the Acquisition of Symmetric and Nonsymmetric Conditional Relations in a Capuchin Monkey

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

Evidence for Response Membership in Stimulus Classes by Pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About